I often wonder why those closest to Jesus at times didn't even recognise him.

At the tomb Mary thought he was the gardener. I mean she didn't make a mistake because he was glowing whiter than Michael Jackson in the sun. Nothing special about him, just the gardener.

I might be the odd man out here but I've never been mistaken for the swimming pool dude with the six pack.

Then his followers the fishermen didn't know who he was. Was he wearing a Bat Mask? Once again if somehow he was looking like a God you would notice that. But nothing other than 'Who's this dude'

Then the bad dude Judas had to point him out to the Roman's.

Even Thomas the doubter said that he would need to thrust his fingers in his wounds to convince him that it was Jesus.

Was he worried he wouldn't recognise him?

And why are there no descriptions of him in the Bible?

I'm an Aussie so I'm a bit Thick so all you wise men please enlighten me.

so all you wise men please enlighten me.

Whoops and Women of course

Because the story is more myth than fact

The lack of recognition is a common mythological device.

^^^^this.....it adds drama and emphasis

All of those stories were after the resurrection which is most likely mythical. As others have said, it is a common motiff.

Jesus had to be pointed out to the Romans because he looked like a typical Jew of the time period. He blended in. See "Historical Appearance" on this Wiki site:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_appearance_of_Jesus#Historical_appearance

This is one representation of what he might have looked like based on typical facial features, coloring, and hairstyles of the time:

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/images/savior/jesusbbc.jpg

There is no reason the Romans would know what Jesus looked like. It isn't as if his picture was in newspapers or TV and they were not likely to have sought him out.

Agreed about the Romans however even then didn’t Jesus preach to thousands, feed thousands, was followed by thousands and then it seems no one knows him.

I feel sure even back then that the Romans who were sent to arrest him would have been given an idea of who they were to arrest, where he was and a basic description.

The size of the crowds was likely exaggerated and identifying someone from a verbal description is very iffy.It isn't as if they had photos of videos of people.

He's like Superman. Slip on a pair of glasses and he is Clark Kent.

And, of course, there's no physical description of anyone in the scriptures except for Goliath being very large and various women being temptingly beautiful.

I can't speak for people like Thomas but if I saw a friend die and in a few days saw him down at Walmart I might be skeptical that it was really him and not someone that had a strong resemblance.

you keep critically thinking like that and you will kick yourself right out of THE (MORmON) church and end up an atheist .....did you also notice the glaring disconnection between the OT and the NT ????

Since the Old and New Testament were written by a many different ancient people with dispute views,over thousands of years, that is hardly surprising. Since most mainline Christians are not literalist and know that the a Bible was written by people, not God, they are not particularly upset by the things that obviously bother you

OK, let me be more exact!

the new testament is OBVIOUSLY a mockery of the old testament. The new testament Messiah is obviously a fictional/ mythological wise cracking character created to mock the Jews. OF course that bothers people who are intelligent enough to see what happened when the same set of books is presented as being the word of god and as complimentary to each other. The load of crap known as the bible /BuyBull bothers intelligent people for the same reason that intelligent are offended by LD$ inc and its MORmON church SCAM, because they are not retarded like the people stupid enough to put any stock in the Utter BS of bible based religion.

I.couldnt disagree more. The Bible isn't history or science and scholars and mainline Christians know that. Ancient stories and.myth mixed with some history doesn't bother them and they accept it.for what it is.

I don't know what denominations you hang out in, but there a LOT of fundamentalist churches out there whose members believe in the Bible literally. Even in the more progressive Protestant churches there are people who fly under the radar; I used to work at a PCUSA church and there was a prominent family in the congregation who believed in a literal interpretation (most Presbyterians don't), right down to Young Earth Creationism.

And there are plenty that don't such as Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians etc.I didn't say that there arent Fundamentalists but they are not representative of all Christians although they get more press.

When I come back from a three day vacation my friends don't recognize me.

Then you did it right!


Wait . . . You have friends?

All of my friends are insurance salesmen.

"Jesus was clearly a Jewish male. Based on known traditions of the time period, He was likely a little over five feet tall, had Middle Eastern skin tones, dark hair, and a full beard. According to Luke, Jesus was also circumcised as an infant, according to Jewish custom (Luke 2). Luke 2:52 mentions normal physical and social development, but nothing more.

The Gospel writers mentioned Jesus' clothing. He wore a traditional Jewish outer garment, called a robe in English translations, which was stripped from Him during His trials in Matthew 27. This robe was turned "dazzling white" at His Transfiguration and was given away by lot (a game of chance) when Jesus was crucified. In addition, Jesus wore some type of traditional Jewish undergarment, as was made clear when He washed the feet of His disciples in John 13. John the Baptist also referred to the sandals of Jesus, indicating the type of shoes He wore (Luke 3:16).

Because the disciples in the New Testament did not highlight His physical characteristics, it is likely Jesus did not have any physical characteristics that stood out to His friends. He was likely average height and weight and lacked a bodybuilder physique.

Some mention Isaiah 53:2 when speaking of Jesus' appearance. The passage serves as a prediction of the suffering servant in reference to Jesus. It states, "For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him." According to this verse, Jesus was not known for His physical looks, which confirms the New Testament accounts that mention nothing about His looks."

https://www.compellingtruth.org/Jesus-look-like.html

that description narrows it down to a couple of 100,000 then...

"...Middle Eastern skin tones..."

Mormon Jesus, of course, is depicted as white to the point of being translucent: one can see the wall studs behind his image.

If you had just seen someone die you would not expect to see that person alive again. If you did see that person alive, you would "not believe your eyes", and you would think there must be some mistake. You would try to identify the person as somebody else, as anybody else.

Also remember it was early in the morning and there wasn't eye glass prescriptions in those days.

I know if I get startled without my glasses I don't always recognize people right away, especially when it's dark everywhere.

This person told me that Jesus does not look exactly like any of the pictures we see of Him, although one particular picture (or did he say "pictures") looks somewhat like Jesus.

Did this person really see Jesus? That's another question.

It's a weird question, because he's not real.

There were a number of wandering preachers/healers of that time period whom scholars know by name and sometimes by reputation. If scholars know these others by name then I don't see why Jesus wouldn't be counted among their number. Jesus had a good reputation as a healer, but so did others.

Where I really appreciate some of these posts I still for the life of me don't get why his friends didn't recognise him.

Didn't he tell them that he was going to rise from the dead? And if they didn't believe it then why were they following him at all?

He was a problem to the Jews, to the Romans supposedly did great miracles preached to tens of thousands and somehow still went unrecognised.

And yet people recognised Peter. -Paraphrase- 'Arnt you the dude who was hanging out with Jesus' Several said that so obviously people were recognised and I would suggest that Jesus should have been more so.

I've spent a lot of time in heavily populated areas that have no TV internet etc and still they all recognise each other.

You don't recognize people whom you have never met. If you saw someone who you knew had died because you saw it, you might doubt it was actually him because dead people dont come back. That would be especially true in poor light and most of the post resurrection stories took place in very early morning or at night.
Besides, you are assuming all the stories of Jesus'popularity, the large crowds and especially the resurrection actually happened. That isn't necessarily true.Ever consider the stories are inflated or didn't actually happen-at least as reported?

Plus back then writers didn't have the (normally) strict line between fact and fiction that we have at present. When we read something we tend to differentiate whether it is factual or a made up story. Black or white. But back in biblical days it was not unusual to mix the two.

Exactly

1. The variance between the OT and the NT is largely covered in the books not included in the Protestant bibles. If you include them, you see and evolution from the OT to the NT.
2. As for the odd recognition of Christ, I see it was being inclusive. That is, if you see a follower you have seen Christ, as in baptism one is regenerated into Christ; that Christ is in you and you are in Christ. Hence, one may ask you if you have seen Christ and may answer in the affirmative.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2019 03:50PM by rhgc.